The principle of a larger nation state or one Europe only makes sense, if the unifying principle is the protection of individual rights, i.e., the political system of capitalism, i.e., more freedom.
Nov 25, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
From Cox and Forkum:
CNN reported yesterday: Chirac bullish on Iraq, EU defense.
On U.S. proposals for transfer of power to the Iraqi people, Chirac said: "It seems to me to be set to take place over too long a period. It seems to me to be incomplete."
It seems to me that Chirac is qualifying his statements in case things go bad after he gets his wish.
Nov 25, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses, Dollars & Crosses 2
From the Weekly Standard:Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda--perhaps even for Mohamed Atta--according to a top secret U.S. government memorandum obtained by the Weekly Standard.The memo, dated October 27, 2003, was sent from Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith to Senators Pat Roberts and Jay Rockefeller, the chairman and vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. It was written in response to a request from the committee as part of its investigation into prewar intelligence claims made by the administration. Intelligence reporting included in the 16-page memo comes from a variety of domestic and foreign agencies, including the FBI, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency. Much of the evidence is detailed, conclusive, and corroborated by multiple sources. Some of it is new information obtained in custodial interviews with high-level al Qaeda terrorists and Iraqi officials, and some of it is more than a decade old. The picture that emerges is one of a history of collaboration between two of America's most determined and dangerous enemies.
More details in the article, which concludes: "[t]here can no longer be any serious argument about whether Saddam Hussein's Iraq worked with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda to plot against Americans." See also Edward Jay Epstein's "Prague Revisited: The evidence of an Iraq/al-Qaida connection hasn't gone away" on Slate.com.
Cartoon by Cox and Forkum.Nov 21, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
The Guardian [September 16, 2003] has some interesting insight into CNN's Christiane Amanpour who has claimed that CNN,...was "intimidated" by the Bush administration in its coverage of the war in Iraq. Amanpour said CNN was "muzzled" by a combination of the White House and the high-profile success of the controversial pro-war news network, Rupert Murdoch-owned Fox News.
No Amanpour. A "muzzle" is what Saddam would do to those who spoke against him, i.e., cut their tongues off, have their daughters raped, etc.
Neither is "high-profile success" a muzzle--it is the result of viewers judging Fox News's war-coverage as being more objective.
"...certainly television - and perhaps to a certain extent my station - was intimidated by the administration and its foot soldiers at Fox News. And it did, in fact, put a climate of fear and self-censorship in terms of the kind of broadcast work we did."
When asked by the interviewer if there had been a story that she had was "muzzled" from reporting on Amanpour said,
"It's not a question of couldn't do it, it's a question of tone. It's a question of being rigorous. It's a question of really asking the questions."
Talk about evading the question. In other words: No there was no censorship.
Truth is there were stories that CNN did not report on. Not out of deference to George Bush and the American government, but out of deference to Saddam Hussein and his Tyranny in Iraq (See Saddam Hussein's Real Ministers of Disinformation Come Out of the Closet).
...Jim Walton, president of CNN Newsgroup, denied that the network had been subject to undue influence. He is reported to have had a "private conversation" with Amanpour following her comments...A Fox News spokeswoman said: "It's better to be viewed as a foot soldier for Bush than spokeswoman for al-Qaeda."
Amanpour, who was embedded with the military during the Iraq conflict, was seen in a BBC documentary, Fighting the War, raging at British army chiefs because roving correspondents were getting better pictures than she was. "If you wish to go [with them] you can, but we won't re-embed you if you come back," she was told. Amanpour replied: "[That means] play by the rules or f??? off."
Nov 21, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
From the UK Telegraph:A former German cabinet minister is drawing huge crowds and stoking the fires of popular anti-Americanism with a book arguing that the US government mounted the September 11 attacks in a plot to win global domination. Andreas von Bulow has gone further than Michael Meacher, Tony Blair's former environment minister, who was widely criticized for claiming that America knowingly failed to prevent the attacks. [November 20, 2003]
Nov 21, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
From the UK Telegraph:The European Union is failing to keep track of huge annual subsidies, and 91 per cent of its budget is riddled with errors or cannot be verified, a financial watchdog said yesterday. The European Court of Auditors refused to certify EU accounts for the ninth successive year, saying Brussels has failed to match reform rhetoric with a genuine change of culture. Abuse is said to be endemic in the Common Agricultural Policy, which still consumes almost half the £65 billion budget....
...The court said it was almost impossible to track funds once they had been handed over to member states, which administer 80 per cent of the budget. Money also disappears into Russia, Central Asia, the Balkans and developing countries. Budget controls in Brussels itself are criticised. The report says the European Commission has still not switched to the sort of modern accounting system used by the British Government and World Bank, making it impossible to know if transactions have been "fully and correctly recorded". [EU auditors blast budget failings, November 18, 2003, UK Telegraph]
Nov 21, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Some insight into the minds of country's leading female group as reported by MSNBC:As for President Bush, the group is still angry about a comment he made. President Bush: "The Dixie Chicks are free to speak their mind. They can say what they want to say and ... they shouldn't have their feelings hurt, just because some people don't want to buy their records when they speak out. I mean, you know, freedom is a two-way street."
[Jaime] Gangel: "When you heard the president say that how did you feel?"
[Natelie] Maines [of the Dixie Chicks]: "My heart sunk."
Gangel: "Because?"
Emily Robison [of the Dixie Chicks]: "He wasn't standing up for the principles that our country are founded on....
Just what principle is that? Bush is correct in this context, freedom is a "two way street", i.e., just as the Dixie Chicks have the freedom to use their podium and fame to promulgate their views, others have the right to not pay for and support that podium. Someone should sit the girls with Kid Rock.
Further Reading:
Nov 21, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
From Cox and Forkum:
Question to ponder: It is reported that over 100,000 bodies in the U.K. protested against George W. Bush--who freed the Iraqis' from the Middle East's version of Hitler/Stalin. Now why didn't those same bodies organize similar sized "protests" against other visitors to the UK, like Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe, China's Jiang Zemin, Syria's Asaad, or the host of other real dictators?
Answer to Bush's Question Peaceniks hate capitalism and freedom more than they do terrorism and dictatorship.
Smashing Windows for Peace The goal of the protestors is to impose their anti-war tirades on a public that does not agree with them, and to do so by forcibly disrupting the lives of commuters, office workers, government officials and political opponents.
- They Hate Us, Too The hostility of the "anti-war" protestors is not toward war, nor even toward war with Iraq--but toward America and its philosophy of individualism.
- Thinking it Alone: U.S. Must Reject the Evil Doctrine of "Multilateralism" Military decisions are decisions about life and death--about what should be done to protect us from enemies who seek our destruction. If our leaders are to fulfill their obligation to defend our country, they must--starting with Iraq--reject the poison of "multilateralism" and replace it with the virtue of independent, rational judgment.
Nov 21, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
The BBC quotes a Brit protesting Bush in London:"I hate the Americans, or rather I like the people but not any of their leaders. I was in the British Army during World War II and the Americans did nothing for two and a half years until they themselves were attacked at Pearl Harbour even though we were having a dreadful time, nothing has changed since then so that's why I'm marching today."
Translation: I hate American leaders because they are too selfish, and only risked their countrymen's lives in war to protect themselves.
Sigh. Only if that sentiment were true. [Hat Tip: B. Harburg-Thomson]
Nov 20, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
The investigation by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (published by the New York Sun) into the Ford Foundation's funding of anti-Israel radicals seems to be paying off:When the Ford-funded anti-Israel Web site, www.palestinereport.org, deleted its "armed revolution" pages and its direct links to the Web sites of terrorist groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad--steps taken after JTA published its investigation--Ford officials declined to acknowledge the change or their role in it.
A staffer at www.palestinereport.org said, "Ford's Cairo office called and insisted we remove the links at once because of the funding articles--and the problems with the Congress was the reason. We redesigned the entire site without those links."
Congress and Jewish groups are insisting on more than cosmetic changes: They want the funding to stop.
The groups funded by Ford have refused to sign a Certification Regarding Terrorist Financing, a pledge required by Usaid, which affirms that no funds have made or will make their way into organizations to "advocate or support terrorist activities."
"A note of reality crept in when Ford saw that the JTA information was credible and the facts against them were solid," said Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents. "We are seeing the first signs of change, but they are still funding these same organizations. That is a matter of concern and hopefully we will see a change."
The following day the foundation announced it would work to make sure it did not fund anti-Semitic and anti-Israel activities (though a Sun editorial noted that, given its past history, "Any suggestion that the Ford Foundation was surprised by the kind of charges the JTA raised is poppycock.")
Nov 20, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
From Cox and Forkum:
FoxNews reported yesterday: Lawmakers Work to Wrap Up Medicare Bill.
Enjoying the blessing of the politically influential AARP, President Bush on Monday began the push for one of his top legislative priorities -- providing a prescription drug benefit to America's seniors.Bush met with lawmakers on the 10-year, $400 billion package of benefits -- the largest expansion of social services in America since the Great Society -- and practically dared negotiators to stop a bill that provides subsidized drug coverage to 40 million elderly Americans.
Comments Allen Forkum: "The Democrats are complaining about the bill, but only because they want it to be even more socialistic. This is what Bush gets for trying to out socialist the Democrats."
Capitalism Magazine has a two recent editorials on the subject that are well worth reading:
The New Medicare Program: A Prescription for Disaster by Richard E. Ralston
Rather than reduce the cost of drugs, like all government medical plans the new program will just add more of the poison that created the disease. Rigid controls and the vast bureaucracies of Medicare and the FDA already add billions of dollars to the cost of drugs. This, not the market place, is responsible for the current high cost of drugs. New government programs and "benefits" will further explode drug costs and result in rationing, restrictions, regulations, less research, and fewer drugs. Adding yet more federal bureaucracy to administer another program will just layer on more expense.Fewer new drugs will become available as a consequence of these plans. When the government is "surprised" after the escalation in drug costs that result from a plan that promises to pay all of the bills, it will inevitably proceed to price controls and other new restrictions on drug companies
How do these Republican advocates of less government and free markets justify this huge new program? The woefully inadequate fig leaf they provide is the introduction of competition to Medicare from private insurance companies. However such competition will be available temporarily in only six cities during a six year test period beginning seven years from now (2010). What a triumph for Capitalism! Yet Senator Edward Kennedy says it will destroy Medicare. Yea. Sure.
Free-Lunch Medicine by Thomas Sowell
None of the various schemes for lowering the prices of medicines seems willing to face up to the simple fact that each new medicine developed costs hundreds of millions of dollars. This huge inescapable fact seems to just evaporate from the discussion as politicians vie with one another for the best way to make these medicines "affordable" at "reasonable" prices.Politicians who claim to be able to "bring down the cost of health care" are talking about bringing down the prices charged. But prices are not costs. Prices are what pay for costs.[...]
Government price controls on medicines and medical care simply mean that these costs do not all get covered. This works in the short run -- and the short run is what politicians are interested in, because elections are held in the short run. But the rest of us had better think ahead, if we value our health.
